13-1770

Kraja v. Holder

BIA

A095 837 722

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 23rd 4 day of June, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 EREN KRAJA,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 13-1770

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. Diraimondo, Melville, New

24 York.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

27 General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior

28 Litigation Counsel; Jacob A.

29 Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of

30 Immigration Litigation, United

31 States Department of Justice,

32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is

3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for

4 review is DENIED.

5 Eren Kraja, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks

6 review of an April 8, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his

7 motion to reopen. In re Eren Kraja, No. A095 837 722

8 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2013). It is undisputed that Kraja’s motion

9 was untimely because it was filed approximately nine years

10 after the agency’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

11 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, “[t]here is no time limit on

12 the filing of a motion to reopen . . . based on changed

13 country conditions arising in the country of nationality or

14 the country to which removal has been ordered, if such

15 evidence is material and was not available . . . at the

16 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 

17 An alien seeking to have an administrative decision

18 reopened on this basis bears the “‘heavy burden’ of

19 demonstrating that the proffered new evidence would likely

20 alter the result in [his] case.” Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d

21 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the BIA’s decision on

22 this point only for abuse of discretion. Id. After

23 considering the record, we find no error in the BIA’s

2
1 determination that Kraja failed to meet his burden.

2 Moreover, Kraja’s claim that the BIA did not consider all of

3 his evidence is untrue. Kraja does not identify what

4 evidence he believes the BIA failed to consider and the

5 BIA’s decision specifically discusses all of the exhibits

6 Kraja provided. 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

8 DENIED. 

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

11

12

3